Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 105

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

• Article:
  West Azerbaijan Province etc. ( [1]
  )
• Source: http://www.azeri.dk/en/articles/summay_of_azerbaijan_history.pdf
• This is a paper without
  sources
  . I think this paper was prepared for the purpose of realizing Azerbaijani nationalist propaganda.

-- Takabeg (talk) 15:09, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

The paper is not a reliable source, it is clearly selfpublished and have comparable authority to a blog post.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:39, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

• The paper appears unreliable. --Odie5533 (talk) 09:51, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

There is a dispute at the dispute resolution noticeboard about the Haven (TV series) article, in particular the references to the works of Steven King that are found in it. At the moment syfy.com is being used to source many of these claims. For instance, "http://www.syfy.com/haven/stephenking"[2], "Derry and the titular Haven are both fictional cities in Maine previously used in the author's stories"[3], and "one of the main characters receives a copy of a novel written by a character from King's novel, Misery".[4] The videos on these pages are being used to back up the claims. From our article on Syfy, it seems that Syfy.com is more notable for publishing original science fiction than for journalism, although I think the fact that Syfy also runs Sci Fi Magazine is a good sign that they have an editorial board which checks facts. I can't find anything about the editorial process at their website though. I would be very grateful for other editors' input on this. Regards — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 10:44, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Syfy produces Haven (TV series), so they're clearly an authoritative source on it. --GRuban (talk) 11:38, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

• I found [5] to back up the claim about Haven and [6] by Brian J. Robb which backs up the claim about the prison. You should probably include both references to these reliable sources and references to the videos. I would try to find references to back up their little videos. I couldn't find a single author on the website anywhere which does not bode well for the site's reliability. --Odie5533 (talk) 11:42, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Syfy is acting as a

WP:PRIMARY source here (as they are publishing material on their own show) so the requirements for secondary sources do not apply (editorial factchecking etc) but the limitations within Wikipedia on the use of primary sources are what should be considered. Siawase (talk

) 12:22, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Aha, I missed the fact that they were the producers of the series. That's what comes of not reading the article properly before posting here - thanks for pointing it out. In that case I agree we can use it with the restrictions in

WP:PRIMARY. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫

12:49, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Two traditional german online music magazines: whiskey-soda [7] and laut.de [8] a reliable source for Tarja Turunen: "This deeper "rock"-sounding voice on Once—as well as on the song "In the Picture" of the album Into the Light—was welcomed by critics as a refreshing change."? --Pass3456 (talk) 19:24, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Any help in explaining self-pub problems on Talk:Marian_apparition#Our_Lady_of_Good_Success will be appreciated. I am getting tired of reading policy pages to newbies. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 08:28, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Is an article from Change.org considered to be a reliable source? The specific article in question is [9]. Angryapathy (talk) 16:16, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Change.org's posts appear to be primarily of the opinion type - and, at best, citable as the opinion of the author. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:27, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Is anthonyflood.com a reliable source for this content:

Conservative, libertarian and neoliberal arguments against property redistribution consider the term a euphemism for theft, and argue that redistribution of legitimately obtained property cannot ever be just.[10]

Somedifferentstuff (talk) 20:14, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

• Probably not, as it seems to be a personal site. On that specific claim there are dozens of published books making similar claims, many available on google books. Protonk (talk) 22:53, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Is the Oxford University Press's Academic Insights for the Thinking World blog acceptable as a reliable source? In particular, content from this contribution which is being discussed at Talk:Teribus ye teri odin. 91.5.39.201 (talk) 21:11, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

As ever - it apears all etymlogies are is opinion, and sourced and attributed opinions seem fair game. No living person involved, to be sure <g>. Collect (talk) 21:21, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Neither discussion seemed conclusive on the Political Research Associates and mentioned them tangentially rather than specifically. Since 2007, We have tightened many policies involving living person and both editors have left thus the topic seem relevant to raise again. I have ask ya'll is it reliable for our purposes in general and specifically BLPs? The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 01:54, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

This source is certainly questionable but I don't like blanket bans based on ideology rather than editorial standards. In the archive discussion Berlet claimed he has editorial supervision. Is there a specific quote under consideration? Brmull (talk) 02:28, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree, ideological stance does not invalidate a source. I merely noted the "Fascist Demagogue" comment as unusual for a

WP:RS. I am unfamiliar with the organization or their editorial polices and am seeking guidance. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs

) 02:52, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

You missed one.

• Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_11#EIR_vs_PRA

In those discussions, note that user:Niels Gade, user:Marvin Diode, and user:Terrawatt were all later blocked as socks of the same banned user. In regard to the discussion here, Chip Berlet has said here, and the website supports him, that he is an employee of the organization, not its founder or head. It is not an SPS. Of course, questions about reliable sources may depend on the details and context. What assertion is being cited from which publication, written by whom?   Will Beback  talk  06:36, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

As for "fascist demagogue", the subject in question is called "fascist" by many who study him. Here's a book which seems to endorse Berlet and Bellman's analysis: On the edge: political cults right and left. It's a fairly mainstream view. "Demagogue" is rarer, but I see this this book uses the entire term: Socialist feminism, the first decade, 1966-76.   Will Beback  talk  06:45, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Someone please remind the editors of

Someone please tell Elizium to cut it out and get over his

WP:SPS

, we've been through all this on the article talkpage, Elizium is just not willing to man up when he's wrong.

Elyzium is now stalking me.

Elyzium is now revert warring over on the LICD page as well.

Drama aside, there is dispute about the definition of "third party" as it is used in

WP:V policy. Anyone? Elizium23 (talk

) 05:17, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

The drama continues on Talk:Least I Could Do where we are still debating the same self-published sources and whether they are proper reliable sources for a plagiarism allegation. More eyes would be appreciated. Elizium23 (talk) 20:46, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Sources being proposed are this forum post and this Kickstarter page. Elizium23 (talk) 20:48, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

• I've been asked to point out that it's not actually allegations of plagiarism - rather, it's allegations of misappropriation of intellectual property, a subtle distinction. Anyway, the point is not whether or not to consider the allegations as valid, but whether or not to mention that they were made. Sohmer has explicitly stated, officially, that his rationale for doing the Kickstarter project was his dissatisfaction with his former corporate partner. A corporate representative has disputed Sohmer's allegations; Sohmer then posted a rebuttal -- and then admitted that "commenting on pending litigation isn't the smartest thing to do". Which I guess means that neither party will be willing to provide further details. Anyway, when X posts -- as "X Webforums Administrator" on the official X webforums -- a statement to the effect that "I performed Action Y for Reason Z", I think that's a reliable source for X's motivations. Where it becomes more complicated is statements along the lines of "I performed Action Y because Z is a cheating thieving bastard who stole from me". DS (talk) 22:50, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Plagiarism is defined in dictionaries as the "wrongful appropriation," "close imitation," or "purloining and publication" of another author's "language, thoughts, ideas, or expressions," and the representation of them as one's own original work - if this isn't to be called plagiarism then what is the word for it? Elizium23 (talk) 22:53, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I have been pointed to this resource, which seems informative. I'm frankly not too interested in this particular drama, but fairness and accuracy are important. DS (talk) 20:35, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

For

Sounds fine to use the interview. Most news sites won't use factual information from less trustworthy sites, but they make an exception for interviews since unless the site is really low and faked it, the interview is the similar to SPS from the person that was interviewed. Also, My Little Pony? Really? --Odie5533 (talk) 16:06, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

It *is* a surprisingly good cartoon (the creative people behind it are veterans of cross-generational animated shows like Powerpuff Girls and Foster's Home..., and it shows in this cartoon. This has, as you'll noted in the WP article, created a massive following of adults that love this show; ergo, it is getting some mainstream attention, but detailed interviews like this would normally go the wayside...) --MASEM (t) 17:40, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

What makes an interview (assuming it's not a hoax) be "reliable" is really the person being interviewed. (What makes it an indication of notability, on the other hand, is the journalist doing the interview: Half an hour with a fan is zero out of ten points; half an hour with Barbara Walters is a perfect ten.)

Look at {{Cite interview}} to see a typical way of citing interviews. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:23, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Equestria Daily has come up here several times before (look in the archives.) If I recall correctly previous consensus was basically that given the history of the creators of the show giving exclusives to Equestria Daily (and Equestria Daily being cited by news outlets) the material the site gets directly from the creators can be taken at face value (there is no reason to believe Equestria Daily is misrepresenting it) and used as

WP:PRIMARY material. Siawase (talk

) 23:51, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

In this edit 86.135.240.243 has restored a section which shows conversions between the Hebrew calendar and Exigian calendar (whatever that is). There is no citation showing that the Exigian exists, or if it exists, that it is sufficiently widely used to preferred over the Gregorian calendar as a target for conversion. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:55, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

See

WP:DISPUTE. This board is to determine the reliability of sources. It looks like User:Elockid is handling it. --Odie5533 (talk

) 18:28, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

• The article name; Tamil Tigress

I want to add content to the above article. I am asking advice on Source A and Source B. Note that both sources cover the same article by the same person, but they are given as two sources because it is published in two different media. Source A is an online forum subject to editor control and discretion. It offers scope for interaction through editor moderated comments and verifiability and fact checking through links and citations. Source B is a mainstream leading newspaper without the extra scope offered by the online source.

• A Full citation of source A;

Michael Roberts (31 August 2011)"Forbidden Fruits: Niromi de Soyza’s “Tamil Tigress”, Noumi Kouri and Helen Demidenko?", Groundviews

• The Link;

Forbidden Fruits: Niromi de Soyza’s “Tamil Tigress”, Noumi Kouri and Helen Demidenko?

• Full citation of source B;

Michael Roberts (September 2011) "Forbidden Fruits? Niromi de Soyza, Noumi Kouri and Helen Demidenko?", The Island.

• The Link

Island Part 1 Island Part 2

Source A and B cite and quote two primary sources, Title at Allen and Unwin and, With Niromi de Soyza Thursday 21 July2011 and I have used those quotes too(with inline citations) in order to clearly summarize the relevant arguements contained in Sources A and B.

• The most relevant parts contained in Sources A and B that support the statements in the article. (The sources A, B in entirety and overview also support these statements. But I am including these most relevant and specific parts for convenience because the source article is very long)

Market Pitch, Fundamental Error

The dramatic beginning via “The Ambush” is geared to the book’s market pitch. Both the back cover and the cyber-world notices advertising the book tell us that “two days before Christmas 1987, at the age of 17, Niromi de Soyza found herself in an ambush as part of a small platoon of militant Tamil Tigers fighting the government forces that was to engulf Sri Lanka for decades (emphasis mine).”[x] The appeal here highlights the pathos of her journey in life by underlining her youthfulness and placing the encounter just prior to the natal day of Jesus Christ.

But within this little tale within a biographical tale lies a fundamental error. Once the uneasy relationship of ‘alliance’ between the LTTE and the Indian government (the LTTE’s ‘mentor’) unravelled in September-October 1987, the Tigers were engaged in a guerrilla war with the Indian Peace Keeping Force (IPKF) in the northern and eastern parts of the island. As the details below reveal, the armed services of the Sri Lankan state (GoSL) were not directly engaged in this war and did not have joint operations with the Indians on the ground. In brief, the December skirmish could NOT have been against Sri Lankan soldiers.

It is not an Allen & Unwin mistake. When de Soyza was interviewed by Margaret Throsby, she remarks “when I joined, the Indian forces had arrived and the Tigers had chosen to fight the Indian forces as well as the Sri Lankan forces.”[xi] Such profound ignorance suggests that she was not in Sri Lanka then and that her tale is a fabrication fashioned without adequate homework.

Dramatic Shifts in the Year 1987

...

Implications

The setting that I have traced above is pertinent to the embellishments in Tamil Tigress, notably the use of Thileepan’s photograph with Muralie beside him – both prominently highlighted in the book as the Tiger officers who enlisted Niromi (Tigress, 66-69), while Muralie was the platoon leader during her first experience of battle. These touches in turn provide a possible explanation for the reasons that induced de Soyza to obscure the fact that this fire-fight was against the IPKF. The alleged autobiography was finalized in 2010/11 in a context where the Western media has targeted Sri Lanka as an Ogre guilty of war crimes. To place Indian troops behind the guns that threatened her platoon would tarnish her goals. These goals include an explicit desire to show Australians that the boat people who had begun to arrive off the coast of their continent were not economic refugees, but worthy asylum seekers fleeing persecution. She told Throsby that her tale was in line with the revelations provided by the Channel Four documentary Killing Fields and the Moon Panel of Experts. “I knew that when the Tamil Tigers were caught by the soldiers those things would happen they would be shot in the head, raped, tortured all of those things …It was nothing new.”[xxii] To complicate this propaganda pitch by placing the IPKF in the first chapter would spoil her intent.

Trivial Errors? Ethnographic Howlers of Profound Import?

While it was the foundational error in describing the context of her first battle experience that raised questions in my mind about the authenticity of de Soyza’s autobiography, there are other tell-tale signs that added to these doubts – as I have remarked in my initial essay on this topic.[xxix] These were minutiae. Again, a range of minute points of error are listed by Arun Ambalavanar when he recently made the suggestion that Tamil Tigress was a “farce.”[xxx] ...

Some of the questions from Ambalavanar which the publishers may regard as trivial objections have the character of “ethnographic queries” in an anthropological sense.

• The exact statements in the article the sources are supporting;

Then another Sri lankan born Australian academic further questioned the appropriateness of classifying Tamil Tigress as Autobiography

The book's classification as

IPKF

ensured the withdrawal of the Sri Lankan troops from the Battlefield.

That the Sri Lankan forces stayed clear of direct combat with the

LTTE

during this period, apart from the limited operations undertaken at sea by the Sri Lankan Navy,is a basic fact, that would have been known to contemporary Tiger fighters of all ranks.

In contrast the blurb of Tamil Tigress announces, “Two days before Christmas in 1987, at the age of 17, Niromi de Soyza found herself in an ambush as part of a small platoon of militant Tamil Tigers fighting government forces in the bloody civil war that was to engulf Sri Lanka for decades…”

In her Margaret Throsby Interview(between 18.45 and 19.02)Niromi says; “…when I joined, the Indian forces had arrived and the tigers had chosen to fight the Indian forces as well as the Sri Lankan forces”

In the same interview(between 35.56 and 36.23),she responds to a question regarding a film, which claims to be a documentary covering the atrocities committed by the Sri Lankan Government Forces during the final stages of the Elam War ;

“Were you able to watch the four corners documentary? “

“I watched it. I forced myself to watch it… It distressed the whole time….I couldn’t sleep that night… but at the same time it wasn’t new. This was something that I knew had happened. I mean I had witnessed much of it and I knew when… the Tamil tigers were caught by the soldiers those things would happen …they would be shot in the head, raped, tortured all of those things. It was nothing new.”

There is thus an attempted projection of Sri Lankan Forces into her fighting experiences, from which they should in reality have been absent. A possible motive for creating this imagined context is given by by Niromi in her Throsby interview(between 35.21 and 35.54);

“…in 2009 when the war …had ended in Sri Lanka and Tamil refugees were still arriving in Australian Shores by the boat and there was a complete misunderstanding , everyone labeling them as economic refugees because, the war had ended. But I knew different… So I thought somebody has to say something… At that time… the UN panel report wasn’t there…, the four corners documentary hadn’t been shown so I thought I needed to put this story out …despite the fact I didn’t want to...I’d felt there was a need….”

• Links to relevant talk page discussion.

my reverted revision diff from current

I hope this is enough information or that it's not too much. Gettingthere (talk) 08:57, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

These are not reliable sources, but there are already servicable sources in the article that are not being utilised. The Sri Lanka Guardian article has details that can be used to make many of these points about inaccuracies in the book. Paul B (talk) 12:45, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. In terms of forum though I tend to rate The Island and Groundviews higher than SLG also in terms of source Author expertise MR'd rate higher than AA. But the point is AA/SLG challenges on ethnographic(subjective) grounds while MR/GV/Island challenges on foundational error grounds(objective). So one can't really substitute MR/GV/Island source with the AA/SLG.Gettingthere (talk) 13:46, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

You can make a case for Michael Roberts under

WP:SPS, but you have to provide independent evidence that he is an expert on the topic in question. However there is the caveat that this cannot apply to BLPs. This article is actually on a book, not a person, so its uncertain whether BLP rules apply, especially as the author is nothing more than a name, not an identifiable individual. But that's a question for the BLP noticeboard. Paul B (talk

) 16:06, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

But my querry was not about that. To develop Tamil Tigress further , adding a Controversy section, I claim the following as reliable secondary sources, which analyses the statements contained in the Throsby interview and Tamil Tigress blurb, contrasts them with the actual circumstances prevailing in Sri Lanka due to the Indo Lanka Accord and and forms conclusions i.e.;Market pitch/Fundamental Error, profound ignorance suggestive of non-residence in SL during the relevant period, a fabrication fashioned without adequate homework.

• A- Michael Roberts (September 2011) Forbidden Fruits? Niromi de Soyza, Noumi Kouri and Helen Demidenko? The Island Part 1, Part 2 .

• B- Michael Roberts (31 August 2011) Forbidden Fruits: Niromi de Soyza’s “Tamil Tigress”, Noumi Kouri and Helen Demidenko?, Groundviews

The word "source" in Wikipedia has three meanings: the work itself (a document, article, paper, or book), the creator of the work (for example, the writer), and the publisher of the work (for example, The New York Times). All three can affect reliability.

Policy

The word "source" as used on Wikipedia has three related meanings: the piece of work itself (the article, book), the creator of the work (the writer, journalist), and the publisher of the work (for example The New York Times, Cambridge University Press, etc.). All three can affect reliability. Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both.

Guideline

According to the above policy and guideline, A and B count as two sources, because even though it's the same article by the same author two different publishers are involved.

Confusion about sources

There is some confusion about these sources. Roscelese and Loonymonkey have accused me of original research and synthesis, of using personal analysis of interviews with author to prove she is lying. I think they only went through Roberts Michael, 21August2011, Another Demidenko? Niromi de Soyza as a Tiger Fighter, Thuppahi's Blog, saw no interview excerpts or analysis there and assumed OR.

Since, "Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both", let me estasblish Michael Roberts as an authority or expert on the subject. Specially as in accordance with "When taking information from opinion pieces, the identity of the author may help determine reliability. The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint. If the statement is not authoritative, attribute the opinion to the author in the text of the article and do not represent it as fact."-

Michael Roberts as specialist and recognized expert

Michael Roberts^[1][2] was educated at St. Aloysius College, Galle and his B.A degree with honours in History at the University of Ceylon at Peradeniya. He received a Rhodes Scholarship to Oxford and attended Merton College while completing his D.Phil in History.^[2] He taught at the Department of History at Peradeniya in 1961-62 and from 1966-75. He was Director Dogsbody of the Ceylon Studies Seminar during its halcyon days and one part of the engine room for Modern Ceylon Studies in its early years.^[1] He secured an Alexander von Humboldt Fellowship to Germany in 1975^[1] and subsequently joined the Department of Anthropology at the University of Adelaide in 1977, where he is now an Adjunct Associate Professor. He was the founding Editor of Social Analysis in 1979. His Major works include Elites, Nationalisms and the Nationalist Movement in British Ceylon(Colombo: Department of National Archives, 1977);^[2] Caste Conflict and Elite Formation: The Rise of a Karava Elite in Sri Lanka, 1500-1931(Cambridge University Press, 1982);^[3][4] People Inbetween: The Burghers and the Middle Class in the Transformations within Sri Lanka, 1790s-1980s, Vol 1 (Colombo:Sarvodaya Press, 1989);^[5] Exploring Confrontation. Sri Lanka: Politics, Culture and History(Reading:Harwood Academic Publishers, 1994);^[6] Crosscurrents: Sri Lanka and Australia at Cricket, (Sydney: Walla Walla Press, 1998)^[7]…

-Taken from the book jacket of Sinhala consciousness in the Kandyan period, 1590s to 1815^[8][9] with inline citations added by me where appropriate.

While Roberts can be described as a historical anthropologist, the fact remains that all his work engages the political relations of power and that he straddles the disciplines of Politics, Sociology, Anthropology and History.^[10]He is a prolific writer and contemporary political commentator on a wide range of subjects.

Michael Roberts on Politics of Identity

• The burden of history: Obstacles to power sharing in Sri Lanka Michael Roberts, Contributions to Indian Sociology, 2000
• Roberts, Michael, and International Centre for Ethnic Studies. Firstness, history, place & legitimate claim to place-as-homeland in comparative focus/ Michael Roberts, International Centre for Ethnic Studies, Colombo: 2005
• Michael Roberts Language and national identity: the Sinhalese and others over the centuries, Nationalism and Ethnic Politics, Volume 9, Issue 2, 2003
• Roberts, Michael, and Pieris, Jeronis, Facets of modern Ceylon history through the letters of Jeronis Pieris/Michael Roberts, Hansa Publishers, Colombo : 1975
• Roberts, Michael, and Ceylon National Congress. and Sri Lanka. Jatika Lekhanaraksaka Departamentuva. Documents of the Ceylon National Congress and nationalist politics in Ceylon, 1929-1950 / edited by Michael Roberts, Dept of National Archives, Colombo : 1977
• Roberts, Michael, Collective identities, nationalisms, and protest in modern Sri Lanka/ edited by Michael Roberts, Marga Institute, Colombo : 1979
• Michael Roberts, Of traditions, memories and ideological blockages Asian Studies Review Volume 18, Issue 2, 1994
• Michael Roberts, The cultured gentleman: The appropriation of manners by the middle class in British Ceylon Anthropological Forum, Volume 7, Issue 1, 1994
• Michael Roberts, Studying Collective Consciousness over Time in Sri Lanka: Questions for Post-Orientalism, Part I, lines magazine, May 2006 /August 2006
• Michael Roberts, Apocalypse or accommodation? Two contrasting views of Sinhala‐Tamil relations in Sri Lanka South Asia: Journal of South Asian Studies Volume 12, Issue 1, 1989
• Michael Roberts (1978). Ethnic Conflict in Sri Lanka and Sinhalese Perspectives: Barriers to Accommodation. Modern Asian Studies, 12, pp 353-376 doi:10.1017/S0026749X00006193
• Michael Roberts, ESSAY Narrating Tamil Nationalism: Subjectivities and Issues, South Asia: Journal of South Asian Studies, n.s. Vol.XXVII, no.1, April 2004
• Roberts, Michael, and Marga Institute. Sri Lanka : collective identities revisited/ edited by Michael Roberts, Marga Institute, (Colombo) : 1997

Michael Roberts on Politics of Knowledge

• Michael Roberts Modernist theory : trimming the printed word : the instance of pre-modern Sinhala society Colombo : International Centre for Ethnic Studies, 2002
• Roberts, Michael. and Brown, Kenneth. Using oral sources : Vansina and beyond / edited by Kenneth Brown & Michael Roberts Dept. of Anthropology, University of Adelaide, Adelaide : 1980
• Michael Roberts, A tale of resistance: The story of the arrival of the Portuguese in Sri Lanka Ethnos, Volume 54, Issue 1-2, 1989
• Michael Roberts Potency Power & People in Groups Marga Institute, ISBN 9789555821292, 2011

Michael Roberts on Politics of Cricket

• Roberts, Michael, Essaying cricket : Sri Lanka and beyond/ Michael Roberts Vijitha Yapa Publishers, Colombo : 2006
• Michael Roberts, John Howard: Cricket Australia's misjudged power-play, The Drum Opinion Australian Broadcasting Corporation, 5 July 2010
• Michael Roberts, Landmarks and Threads in the Cricketing Universe of Sri Lanka, Sport in Society, Volume 10, Issue 1, 2007, Special Issue: Cricket, Race and the 2007 World Cup
• Michael Roberts, Wunderkidz in a Blunderland: tensions and tales from Sri Lankan cricket Sport in Society, Volume 12, Issue 4-5, 2009, Special Issue: Cricket: International and Interdisciplinary Approaches

Michael Roberts on Politics of Conflict and Confrontations

• Roberts, Michael, Confrontations in Sri Lanka : Sinhalese, LTTE & others / Michael Roberts, Vijitha Yapa Publications, Colombo : 2009
• Michael Roberts, BLUNDERS IN TIGERLAND: PAPE’S MUDDLES ON “SUICIDE BOMBERS” IN SRI LANKA Heidelberg Papers in South Asian and Comparative Politics, Working Paper No. 32, November 2007
• Michael Roberts Understanding Zealots and Questions for Post- Orientalism IIAS Newsletter 7 International Institute for Asian Studies
• Michael Roberts Fire and Storm, Vijitha Yapa Publications ISBN 9789556651348, 2011

Michael Roberts as a Contemporary Political Commentator

• Michael Roberts, Crude reasoning The Drum Opinion, Australian Broadcasting Corporation 17 Nov. 2009
• Michael Roberts Taken in by Tamil tall tales The Australian, November 04, 2009
• Michael Roberts, Realities of war, A response challenging the calls for ceasefire as a solution to the hard realities around the LTTE’s endgame. FRONTLINE, Volume 26 - Issue 10 :: May. 09-22, 2009
• Michael Roberts Some pillars for Lanka’s future FRONTLINE, Volume 26 - Issue 12 :: Jun. 06-19, 2009
• Michael Roberts A Verbal Joust between a Tamil Nationalist and a Thuppahi Mongrel 12 September 2011, Melbourne, Sri Lanka Guardian

Double barreled reliability

...Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both

-Guideline

Accordingly I claim A-Michael Roberts (September 2011) Forbidden Fruits? Niromi de Soyza, Noumi Kouri and Helen Demidenko? The Island Part 1, Part 2 . as a source which is reliable on both counts(author+publication) and B-Michael Roberts (31 August 2011) Forbidden Fruits: Niromi de Soyza’s “Tamil Tigress”, Noumi Kouri and Helen Demidenko?, Groundviews as a source which assumes reliablity beacause of the author.

Misrepresentation of Groundviews

Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or which lack meaningful editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional, or which rely heavily on rumor and personal opinion. Questionable sources should be used only as sources of material on themselves, especially in articles about themselves; see below. They are unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties.

Groundviews Funding and support

Groundviews was set up under the Voices of Reconciliation Project, conducted by the Centre for Policy Alternatives (CPA) from 2005 – 2006 and funded by

Groundviews Awards

In December 2007, Groundviews was awarded an Award of Excellence in New Communications from the Society for New Communications Research. It is the first and to date only civil society and media web initiative in Sri Lanka to have won a competitive international award for excellence in journalism and media. “Groundviews exemplifies the mission of this awards program: the successful and innovative use of new communications solutions and social media practices to enhance communications and relationships” commented Mike Manuel, SNCR Best Practices committee chairman.

In 2009, Groundviews won the prestigious Manthan Award South Asia. The grand jury’s evaluation of the site noted, “What no media dares to report, Groundviews publicly exposes. It’s a new age media for a new Sri Lanka… Free media at it’s very best!” oops forgot to signGettingthere (talk) 07:08, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

References

The prior discussion on this board about the Daily Dot can be found here.

I'm bringing this subject up again not to comment on the news site itself, which has blossomed since the prior section about it into a full news resource for online topics. No, I would like to instead revisit whether the author of certain articles, specifically ones on Encyclopedia Dramatica, can still be considered independent enough to be secondary and whether they might be slightly biased by fraternization. The author in question is Fruzsina Eordogh, who recently made a new article about ED.ch, which can be found here. One of Eordogh's IRC chats on ED.ch was recently unearthed (for full disclosure, by Eric Barbour on Wikipedia Review) and can be found here. Note: Eordogn is the user Zardoz in that IRC chat.

The issue I have with it is that one would expect some amount of professionalism from a reporter trying to write a news story. At some points in that IRC discussion (which appears to not have all comments from other parties in it) she does seem to have that respectability, but at many other points, she seems to be acting rather unprofessional and close to the subjects she's interviewing. It's one thing to be making a joke here and there while conducting an interview, which journalists do a lot of the time, but this seems to be a step beyond that.

What do the editors of RSN think? Silverseren^C 15:07, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

You said you don't want comments on the site itself. The IRC user appears to be 14 years old. That is my comment. --Odie5533 (talk) 10:16, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I think you're watching the sausage being made. Reporters are people, with all people's quirks and foibles and flaws. They get to post stupid things on IRC without being automatically disqualified from being able to produce accurate unbiased content. --GRuban (talk) 13:14, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Does it change things if I note that it is that same IRC channel, and likely an extension of that conversation there, where she is conducting her interviews? It's not like this chat is a separate thing she's doing in her free time. This is how she's acting while she's doing her job. Silverseren^C 16:05, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

What is your point? --Odie5533 (talk) 17:06, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

If I'm right, Silver seren's point is that in that transcript she's acting like one of the Encyclopedia Dramatica crew: immature. That makes for two possibilities: 1) It's a clever put-on to make her fit in. In which case she's a brilliant reporter. 2) She actually is immature, and a kindred soul to the Encyclopedia Dramatica crew, and is instead faking it when she writes sober prose. In that case, maybe we could view her reporting with a bit of a grain of salt, but only a bit, and only for the most controversial issues. Reporting on the site going down for a while doesn't seem to be that controversial. Consider that most of the reporters reporting on presidential elections plan to vote in those same elections, and many will have quite strong opinions if you catch them in a bar with a few drinks. Separating your personal views from the subject you're reporting on in what you write is a part of being a good reporter. That doesn't extend to behaving as if you have no personal views in general. Unless you believe she is actually an important contributing member of Encyclopedia Dramatica, merely sympathizing with them doesn't disqualify her from reporting on them for an otherwise reliable source. --GRuban (talk) 17:32, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Is the idea here that user Silver seren believes articles written by Eordogh are not appropriate for use in Wikipedia articles? Silver seren has not properly stated his or her views or the possible outcomes of this discussion. --Odie5533 (talk) 20:39, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't comment on all of Eordogh's articles on the Daily Dot (or elsewhere, if she writes articles for other reliable sources), but at least in the instances of her articles on Encyclopedia Dramatica, it appears that she is not conducting herself or her interviews in a manner that one would consider them to be sufficiently reliable for use in our articles. The quotations, perhaps, but certainly not the information. And, as said below, the info in her ED articles is either stuff covered in other more reliable sources or is information that is not sufficiently important to ED's history and shouldn't be in the article anyways. Silverseren^C 00:42, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I can't say that the IRC chat inspires much confidence in the neutrality of the reporting, but let's look at the specific of the article in question. First, some context - User:Michaeldsuarez is an ED admin and is using this Daily Dot article to insert information about Daniel Brandt into Encyclopedia Dramatica despite Brandt's off-wiki requests that he not do so. The Daily Dot article states "Brandt had filed repeated false abuse reports with ED’s perspective[sic] hosts" and "ED community says they think Brandt may be behind this outage as well". The only source for these claims is Encyclopedia Dramtica's owners, who themselves say they are not sure Brandt had anything to do with it. The piece also says that Brandt "writes for" an anonymous blog whose focus appears to be the former owners of ED. Brandt has stated elsewhere that his only connection to that blog is having communicated with the anonymous author(s). Michaeldsuarez knows this. Ignoring all of that, the fact remains that Daily Dot piece is about a temporary site outage. There is no need to include any of this in Wikipedia. Reliability aside, the type of thing covered by the Daily Dot is generally too specific and too "of the moment" to be likely to be useful. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:17, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I think Brandt making a request for us to not include detail about him is fucking rich. But I'm inclined to agree that the content Michael wants to add is pretty marginal, irrespective of the reliability issue. I think we can wait for another source to corroborate the claim before adding it. Protonk (talk) 21:01, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I didn't include any information about either outage in the article. I did include the line: "Moore reported difficulties in securing a host for the website," which is a reference to Moore's "We are blacklisted from most major hosts, because they know how shitty it is to host us" statement from the first article. I later add the second article as a reference as well, since Moore's "They just locked us out [without warning]" comment reinforces the "hosting difficulties" concept. Using my editorial judgment, I decided not to discuss each specific incident. I did not include the Daily Dot's "Brandt had filed repeated false abuse reports with ED’s perspective[sic] hosts" or their "ED community says they think Brandt may be behind this outage as well." Again, this is due to my editorial judgment. Delicious carbuncle, you're complaining about information I didn't add.

The statements included in the Wikipedia article about josephevers.blogspot.com and Daniel Brandt are verifiable beyond Eordogh's own observations. The bulk of this material is in the last paragraph of the "Reception" section. Adrien Chen noted the blog's existence in January 2011. The next sentence in the paragraph is how the blog's operator describes his blog in his own words. The third sentence is the anonymous blogger's claim that he helped those who are harmed by ED. I can verify this with secondary sources, but I do have primary sources: [12], [13]. There's also a comment by "Kevin Provance" in the second Daily Dot article's comments section (JavaScript is needed) that shows that josephevers.blogspot.com has been helping others. Although I used the word "claims" in the third sentence, it's more of a fact. The fourth sentence says that Moore considers josephevers.blogspot.com to be a "stalker blog". The first Daily Dot article includes a screenshot of the former "Wall of ED Administers" page once hosted by josephevers.blogspot.com, and that page included photos, locations, and birth dates.

The fifth and sixth sentences concern Brandt's role in the blog. In his own words that he submitted to Eordogh, Brandt denies being the operator, but he admits doing research for the blog's true operator. Brandt's own words shouldn't be considered unreliable. The seventh and eighth sentences concern the blog's role in shutting down the original ED. The "Wall of ED Administrators" screenshot shows the leverage the blogger had in pressuring ED. The ninth and tenth sentence can be verified by posts by Brandt on the Wikipedia Review (not linked to for privacy reasons). If you view the deletion log for the Daniel Brandt article on encyclopediadramatica.ch, you'll see that that article was indeed temporarily deleted. I only included creditable claims and statements in the Wikipedia article. The statements in the Daily Dot article that I merited inclusion in the Wikipedia are verifiable.

In addition, statements from both Daniel Brandt and josephevers.blogspot.com's anonymous operator are included in the first Daily Dot article (Brandt didn't comment for the second article). Unless there's a reason to believe that Brandt is lying, his statements in the article should be considered reliable for reference.

Delicious carbuncle suggested that I have a COI. My affiliation with ED isn't a secret. I edited at encyclopediadramatica.com under "Michaeldsuarez" from October 2009 to April 2010. I started to use a pseudonym in preparation to becoming a sysop in May. There's a message on my user page concerning my affiliation, and I've recently left a message at the top of Talk:Encyclopedia_Dramatica. I waited until reliable sources appeared and started a discussion before adding information on encyclopediadramatica.ch to the article. I was even in favor of blacklisting encyclopediadramatica.ch. I've told Delicious about my affiliation, yet he used "Fuller disclosure might be useful here" as an edit summary as if it were some major revelation he discovered. I have the feeling he used that line to grab the attention of watchers of this page.

I've been transparent, but how about you, Delicious carbuncle? You're a member of the Wikipedia Review, and members of that forum tend to idolize Brandt. You came to Talk:Encyclopedia_Dramatica several hours after Brandt began complaining about the Daily Dot and say "I don't want my name in Wikipedia." Delicious carbuncle was also one of the accused parties in the "Maniulation of BLPs" case. Perhaps someone else has a COI. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 00:51, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

You are an admin on ED - your conflict of interest here is obvious. Your suggestion that I have a conflict of interest because I post on a public forum, along with many other Wikipedia editors and admins, seems far-fetched at best. Yes, it was the discussion on Wikipedia Review that lead me to look at the article in the first place but that is only relevant in that I am aware of what both you and Brandt have said there. I think your little rant here does a pretty good job of demostrating that you have no objectivity when it comes to ED, so I won't bother to add anything. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:14, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

That may be best. This exchange between you two is basically a diversion. If you want to continue it, take it to your talk pages. Protonk (talk) 03:39, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

A diversion from what, exactly? Why do you think Silver seren started this thread? It is all about the ED article. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:28, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

You and Michael arguing over who has the most lurid connection to some group outside wikipedia. That's the diversion. If you think the central issue at stake is Michael's admitted connection to ed, then go to the COI noticeboard and complain. I suspect you'll find precious little agreement. The issue here is the reliability of the source and more generally the value of the claim in our article. Protonk (talk) 16:20, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Silver seren: What sort of outcome are you looking for from this discussion? Are you requesting that articles written for Daily Dot by Fruzsina Eordogh are not reliable? --Odie5533 (talk) 04:50, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I suppose so, yes. Or, at least, they shouldn't be cited so extensively throughout the article. Silverseren^C 06:13, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I can make neither head nor tail of this discussion, and I find it astonishing that anyone can draw conclusions from the (apparently incomplete -- maybe Zardoz replied publicly to private messages?) IRC log. So I looked at the ED article and searched for the name Brandt. I was shocked to find the server name of a blog mentioned there that contains crass outing information which at least borders on the criminal. There seem to be no explicit rules for dealing with this situation, but IMO this is little better than a link to the blog. I am therefore going to remove it per the spirit of

For the record, that edit removed five instances of the blog's url from a single paragraph. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:35, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I felt that it was best to use a concise name rather than wishywashily calling it "the blog". --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:58, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

There seems to be many issues here, most outside the scope of this board. I don't see the IRC log as having much, if any, bearing here. Wikipedia editors digging into the primary sources used by secondary sources reeks of

As I've said on Talk:Encyclopedia_Dramatica, where this discussion belongs, the information is hardly trivial. I replaced "harassing" with "calling". Brandt doesn't deny calling her workplace in his statement to the Daily Dot and he even gave the interviewer his motivation for making the call (this motivation is repeated in WR posts), and he admits to calling her workplace on the Wikipedia Review. Perhaps I should remove "Moore also accused" part of the sentence, since Brandt did in fact make a call. Garrett's fiancee is also on Brandt's Wikipedia hivemind page, along her private information. If Delicious carbuncle wishes to point out which information is trivial, he may do so on Talk:Encyclopedia_Dramatica, and then consensus will decide what stays or goes. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 15:52, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

The only reason the article doesn't have both parties is because Daniel Brandt refused to get back to them in time for publishing. Daniel Brandt is blackmailing us, stalking us and even harassing our families. Everything written in the DailyDot article is 100% truth. Brandy spends his days stalking and digging private information on other people, but when someone mentions his name on the Internet suddenly it is a violation of privacy. What's good for the goose is not good for the gander. He uses sites like Hivemind, Josephevers.blogspot and others to publicly invade the privacy of others and has been doing so for years. I can be reached using the email user function if anyone wants to know more. The Daily Dot is a reputable source, they just use a more humorous approach at journalism that is appealing to the Internet generation, while keeping the facts straight. This whole discussion is because Brandt didn't like the facts that were written in the article, so he asked silversion or whatever his name is to dispute it. It's all on Wikipedia Revue (Or at least it was, I am sure it has been deleted by now, as that is Brandts MO). --Zaiger (talk) 03:17, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Review discussion in question is here, though the current conversation starts a little bit down the third page. Earlier stuff is about Ryan Cleary, though Brandt does jump in pretty quickly. Do note that ED.ch is also getting information on Brandt, "doxing" him, and are doing the same thing back, so it's not like this is all one-sided with Brandt attacking them.

And i'm not following what Brandt asked of "any Wikipedia editor", since he wants someone to remove his name from the article and, apparently, to get the article deleted. The article is clearly not going to be deleted and I don't care at all about his name being in the article. All I care about is the IRC discussion that he linked that showed what I consider to be unprofessionalism by Eordogh and a lack of reliability in her reporting.

Oh, and do note that Zaiger above is an Administrator on Encyclopedia Dramatica.ch, which he was meaning by saying us, if someone didn't catch that. I'm not calling you out, Zaiger, since I know you meant to reveal this anyways. I'm just making sure no one else gets confused. Silverseren^C 03:56, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure how comfortable I am disqualifying a source because of some external communication. I don't think a parallel to JournoList is completely appropriate, but we ought to draw some lessons. Not all communication channels are created equal or imbued with the same sets of expectations. Protonk (talk) 04:54, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not quite clear on what you mean by an external conversation. I presume you aren't speaking in the Wiki meaning of it, since there isn't going to be an internal conversation Eordogh had. If you mean that her IRC chat was independent of her reporting, that would be incorrect, that exact chat was where she was conducting her interview for the second, new article she wrote. That right there IS her reporting. And the communication channel isn't the issue, it's the professionalism of a person while working as party for a news site. She appears to not have that while conducting her interviews, which brings into question her reliability in reporting information. Silverseren^C 16:44, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I mean the IRC conversation. I'm not advocating mypoia, but our scrutiny should focus on the work itself (that is to say the daily dot). Further, I'm going to go on a limb and suggest that the IRC logs were published on WR and hosted on wikipedia watch for a reason and we would be remiss if we didn't consider that. Are we inventing a new standard for reliable sources here? Does the author have to "act professional" at all times now? Can we (again, just picking an inflammatory example a la JournoList) dismiss a book as a reliable source because the author is revealed to be a dick in emails with sources? Walking a little further with that hypothetical, what if those emails are leaked by a source/subject who is treated critically in the book? Can we trust that those emails represent the preponderance of the authors correspondance? Should we be worried about rewarding tactical posting of ex parte communication? Protonk (talk) 16:58, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

When they are in the midst of conducting their interviews? Yes, I would expect a reporter to be professional. A better example would be if a reporter was writing a story on two opposing companies. And it was later revealed that the transcript of the interview with one of those companies indicated a sort of fraternization that raised the question of whether the articles said reporter had wrote were biased toward one of those companies. I feel that that's true for these articles in question as well. Silverseren^C 16:17, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Silver_seren, why haven't you objected to my participation in the Wikipedia article? Why am I meeting your standards, yet you're saying that Eordogh doesn't? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 00:31, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Were you a part of the interview she conducted? You editing the article doesn't mean you are referencing yourself for info. So I don't understand the comparison. Silverseren^C 16:03, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

No, she didn't interview me. I just concerned about a possible double standard. Why am I fit to edit the Wikipedia, yet you believe that Eordogh's articles are unfit for inclusion? What standards do you use to gauge the neutrality of my revisions? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 17:55, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

You're comparing an editor and a reference, which are two completely different things. We expect you to follow

WP:COI and properly utilize sources without violating NPOV or putting in original research. However, the reliability of a reference is tied to several things, one of which is the neutrality of the author in terms of the subject the reference is about. If the author is not neutral, then that brings into question the reliability of the source for the reported information. Silverseren^C

19:40, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

http://www.dailydot.com/ethics-policy/ – The Daily Dot has similar expectations for its journalists (with the exception of original research, of course). Eordogh restrains herself the same way I restrain myself. Everyone has personal views and tastes, as expected of any human being. I'm not a neutral editor, but the content I add to Wikipedia follows NPOV. Can't the same be said of Eordogh? Is the content of her articles not neutral? Isn't the way information is presented in those articles more important than how the information was obtained? Right now, you're only arguing about some IRC discussions and not about the content of the Daily Dot articles. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 20:53, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Just to clarify on Solver_seren's post: the discussion concerning the first Daily Dot article begins on the second page of the thread and continue into the third page (posts #24–#52). Posts concerning the second Daily Dot article begin on the third page and end on the fourth page (posts #60–#71). @Silver_seren: The Wikipedia article and the Daily Dot article already say that Moore posted Brandt's contact information on an IRC channel. Neither the Wikipedia article nor the first Daily Dot article (Brandt didn't wish to give a statement for the second Daily Dot article) is claiming that only one side is doing the doxing. If there's a perceived imbalance, then it's because Brandt refuses to open himself up to reporters; Brandt doesn't give reporters much material to work with. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 18:40, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Just wanted to ensure that this is a reliable source. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:16, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

The Daily Mail is a tabloid with a reputation (deserved) for making crap up. Only reliable for the day of the week: [14]. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:25, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

A slight exaggeration. As it says right at the top of this page, a source usually isn't either reliable or not (with the possible exception of the Weekly World News), it depends what it's being cited for. While it does have some reputation for making up sensational stories, it is a newspaper with real journalists working there. It should not be used unconfirmed for anything controversial, but if you want to use it for something not controversial or in dispute, such as the city someone was born, I don't see why that should be ruled out out of hand. What's the fact it's being used to cite, and what's the context? --GRuban (talk) 19:38, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

It's a newspaper, therefore it's not reliable. See Andrew Marr, My Trade for examples of journalists making shit up on a regular basis.

ALR (talk) 19:40, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

All together now. ******This question has come up before.****** See the archives, or per GRuban give us some details. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:53, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I had checked, Itsmejudith - and it was rpetty much a macrocosm of what was presented here - people either disenchanted with news in its entirety or specific examples being reliable or not. The item in question appears to be a story about Karen Gillian wandering about naked in a NY hotel or some such. I am having trouble finding independent corroboration. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:28, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

It is

See also Evening Standard [15], and Daily Express [16] if this is the issue? I think they corroborate the Daily Mail bit, and the Daily Mail is likely the most respectable of the group. Collect (talk) 21:10, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

It's time to look at how these newspapers get their news. Top story on the DM website right now is the miners' tragedy. Virtually identical to the BBC, not surprising, all comes from the police reports and/or the wires. Such stories account for about 25% of the DM content. Totally reliable but then there is no reason why not to source the same story to a broadsheet or broadcast. Next comes the stories that are 100% reliable, based on press releases or the wires, but more trivial and more prominent than they are in the broadsheets. That's the next 25%. Then the next 25% is stories that are reliable but are even more trivial gossip; some of them are clearly features or op-ed rather than news. Finally 25% that are junk celebrity tittle-tattle and per Andy may be actually invented. Basically, proper investigative journalism costs money, a lot of money. It costs very little to carry the main stories of the day in the same way as the other papers. It doesn't cost much to pick up minor stories and spin them. And it doesn't cost much to write up fluff as if it were important. DM never reliable for science or medicine. Evening Standard does carry some London-specific stories and can be excellent for arts reviews, brilliant for restaurant reviews, slightly less trivial than DM even as a freesheet. D Express is a joke. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:59, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I think there are two main issues. The first is that much of what appears in the newspapers is "single sources", essentially they're all regurgitating the same story from the same place. So whilst there are "multiple, independent sources" in practice they're neither.

The second issue is the evidence that journalists make stories up. I mentioned Marr above, he's talked about a number of instances where stories were fabricated, and given recent revelations about the conduct of journalists it's pretty clear that newspapers really can't be trusted.

ALR (talk) 22:12, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, if your point is that all newspapers can't be trusted, it's not a very good one. We've decided to cover politics and current events and celebrities, and you'd be surprised how few peer-reviewed science magazines write about those. If you have an argument about the Daily Mail specifically, we'll be glad to hear it, but if your only argument is one that would serve to disqualify the Times and the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal in the same breath, it may be true, but won't really be useful for most of our topics. --GRuban (talk) 22:44, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I think you capture the issue in your final sentence. It may be true that newspapers can't be trusted, but we use them anyway.

The question then becomes, "are we interested in volume of sources or quality of sources"? Personally I'd be more interested in quality, and how they're used, than numbers. That said, there has never been the appetite in the segment that frequent this area of Wikipedia to actually address source assessment; Are we looking at a source that's corroborated, or are we looking at multiple instances of the same information. Worse, are we looking at multiple instances of the same press-release and treating it as a secondary assessment.

We have a very simplistic approach to sourcing, and as ou point out it provides the basis for many articles. I don't anticipate any appetite to actually treat sourcing as a tool when it's a perfectly "adequate" crutch.

ALR (talk) 08:39, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

As we say in

Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources/FAQ

, there is no source that is always unreliable. In addition to the fine example of use that Andy gives above, I add that The Daily Mail is a perfectly fine source if the question you are answering is something like, "What was the headline at the top of page 3 in The Daily Mail on such-and-such date?" Additionally, its masthead will be a reliable source of the names of at least some of the people who should be blamed for its content.

So that's three entirely separate uses for which that newspaper could be considered a reliable source. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:15, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

You should provide the specific context where you wish to use the paper. If a story is only covered in the Daily Mail, then it lacks notability. Editorials do not have the same standards as news articles. Opinions expressed by reporters in news articles should not be considered facts. Reliable sources may contain errors. Articles written decades ago may be too old to be used. Newspapers should not be used as sources for medical claims. TFD (talk) 18:41, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

That would be a notabiltiy issue, but as its been copverd by oterh sources its irrelevant. Anotehr source ^[1], lwts have a non-UK source^[2], so yes its notable, yes its accurate, yes (in this instance) the Mail is RS.Slatersteven (talk) 19:23, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Essay/poll deleted.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:04, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to take a moment and ask you to look at this poll concerning the use of Equestria Daily as a legitmate source.

Thanks,